6 + 2 Point Deductions

My understanding is the panel suggested we could have reduced our claimed mitigation by sueing him but chose not to.
My point is that as well as poor for his health that would have been doomed to failure.
I'm not sure legal action would have been doomed to failure. The FA clearly had grounds to suspend him and we obviously had grounds to dismiss him, because we did so and he has taken no legal action against us. The fact he was never charged with a crime does not mean there was not conduct that made him unable to do his job, leading to that suspension and dismissal. Without speculating too much this is likely down to safeguarding.

If his conduct made it legitimate to dismiss him it is perfectly possible we could have sued him for consequential loss and won.
 
6 back boys i feel it
1708208838324.png
 



Top